In State v. Lyons, 330 N.C. 298, 412 S.E.2d 308 (1991), the Supreme Court explained the crucial difference between the underlying rationales of Diaz and Hartness. Our Supreme Court stated that there is a critical difference between the lines of cases represented by Diaz and Hartness. The former line establishes that a disjunctive instruction, which allows the jury to find a defendant guilty if he commits either of two underlying acts, either of which is in itself a separate offense, is fatally ambiguous because it is impossible to determine whether the jury unanimously found that the defendant committed one particular offense. The latter line establishes that if the trial court merely instructs the jury disjunctively as to various alternative acts which will establish an element of the offense, the requirement of unanimity is satisfied. Id. at 302-03, 412 S.E.2d at 312.